Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Determination

Saints Peter and Paul Assyrian Primary School

Fairfield City

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Construction of a new primary school for up to 630 students from Kindergarten to Year 6.

Attachments & Resources

Request for SEARs (1)

Cover Letter- Biodiversity Assessment

EIS (50)

Letter of Owners Consent
Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix 01- Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requireme
Appendix 02- Clause 4.6 Variation
Appendix 03- DCP Compliance Table
Appendix 04- Consultation Report
Appendix 05- Environmental Risk Assessment
Appendix 06- Quantity Surveyors Certificate
Appendix 07- Detailed Cost Plan
Appendix 08- Plan of Detail Over Lot 2317 DP1201268
Appendix 09- Plan of Detail Over Lots 2320 & 2321 DP1223137
Appendix 10 _1 of 4_- Architectural Drawings
Appendix 10 _2 of 4_- Architectural Drawings
Appendix 10 _3 of 4_- Architectural Drawings
Appendix 10 _4 of 4_- Architectural Drawings
Appendix 11- Architectural Design Report
Appendix 12- Landscape Plans
Appendix 13 _1 of 2_- Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment
Appendix 13 _2 of 2_- Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment
Appendix 14- Sustainable Travel Plan
Appendix 15- Construction Traffic Management Plan
Appendix 16- ESD Strategy
Appendix 17- Section J Review
Appendix 18- Biodiversity Assessment
Appendix 19- Biodiversity Supporting Statement
Appendix 20- Riparian Vegetation Management Plan
Appendix 21- Riparian Zone Management Assessment
Appendix 22- Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report
Appendix 23- Noise Assessment
Appendix 24- Civil Works Masterplan
Appendix 25- Civil Works Plan Stage 01
Appendix 26- Stormwater Management Report
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report
Appendix 27- Detailed Site Investigation
Appendix 28- Previous Detailed Site Investigation
Appendix 29- Remedial Action Plan
Appendix 30- Hazardous Materials Survey
Appendix 31- Electrical Infrastructure Assessment
Appendix 32- Mechanical and Hydraulic Infrastructure Assess
Appendix 33- Preliminary Geotechnical and Salinity Assessme
Appendix 34- Wastewater Assessment
Appendix 35- Flood Management Assessment
Appendix 36- Independent Review of Flood Assessment
Appendix 37- Waste Management Plan
Appendix 38- Preliminary Construction Environmental Managem
Appendix 39- Bushfire Protection Assessment
Appendix 40- Access Report
Appendix 41- Iterative Design Process Statement
Appendix 42- Design Quality Principles Assessment
Appendix 43- Schedule of Materials and Finishes

Response to Submissions (13)

Response to Submissions Report
Response to Additional Information Request
Appendix A- Response to Government Agencies & Organisations
Appendix B- Response to General Public Submissions
Appendix C- Amended Operational Pedestrian and Traffic Man
Appendix D- Amended Construction Traffic Management Plan
Appendix E- Updated Noise Assessment
Appendix F- Supplementary Architectural Drawings
Appendix G- Traffic Statement
Appendix H- RMS Meeting Minutes- Meeting 1
Appendix I- RMS Meeting Minutes- Meeting 2
Appendix J- Architectural Design Statement
Appendix K- Landscape Statement

Additional Information (22)

RFI Response -App F - RMS Growth Plots
Appendix B - Addendum Traffic Assessment
RFI Response -App C Intersection H
RFI Response -App B Intersection -
RFI Response -App D - TMCs Cecil Park
RFI Response -Supp Traffic Advice - 10 February 20
Appendix D - Amended Noise Assessment
Response to RtS from TfNSW(RMS)
RFI Request for Additional Information_15_08_2019
RFI Request for Additional Information_06_08_2019
Additional Information Response - OEH - SSDA 9210
RFI Response - App A - Meeting Minutes
RFI Response -App B Intersection
RFI Response -SSDA 9210
RFI Response -App E - Extracted pages
RFI Response -App G - SIDRA Results
Appendix A - Response to Council RTS submission
Appendix C - Addendum Land Contamination Statement
Response to RTS submissions April 2020.
Appendix A - Supplementary TA - SSD 9210
Additional Information Response - SSD 9210
Formal Response - 17-19 Kosovich Place, Cecil P

Recommendation (3)

Appendix C - draft conditions
Appendix D - Independent traffic review
SSD-9210-Signed Assessment report

Determination (3)

SSD 9210 - Saints Peter and Paul - Approved Plans
210226 Saints Peter and Paul_Statement of Reasons
210226 Saints Peter and Paul_Conditions

Approved Documents

There are no post approval documents available

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

There are no inspections for this project.

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 11 of 11 submissions
Nigel Tully
Comment
North Arm Cove , New South Wales
Message
As an adjoining land owner I have received notification of SSD 9210. I
have no immediate objection to the project.
However concerns are raised by vague and, in some cases, incorrect
descriptions of the adjoining land. I tried to assess the level of
misunderstanding among the authors of the reports submitted with SSD
9210 by phoning them. The responses varied from a preparedness to
listen and amend their ideas to a blunt refusal to acknowledge any
possible errors/faults and an insistence instead on instructing me as
to how to make a submission.
Examples include 'The site comprises a watercourse in its western
extent' and '- - adjoins the site`s western boundary and comprises a
tributary of Ropes Creek'; (Willow Tree); '- - bound by - - an unnamed
tributary of Ropes Creek to the west', ' The watercourse corridor near
the western boundary', 'The tributary is ephemeral, with no water - -
at the time of inspection.' (Martens)
In fact SSD 9210 is bounded to the west by part of a corridor of
privately owned land covered by CT 2/1222339 which extends north to
include Ropes Creek from Wallgrove Rd to Goodrich Rd and for a
considerable distance beyond. (It also forms the western and northern
boundaries of the school`s parent church and was previously the
subject of discussions with the church`s Financial Controller, Paul
Leotta, regarding possible sale to the church.) This corridor of
privately owned land happens to contain, as stated above, an
'ephemeral creek'.
This corridor was created in 1892 when the initial subdivision forming
DP 2954 was carried out according to 19th century surveying principles
named 'right lines' or 'traverse lines' (dependent upon whichever
authority one cites.)
During the 46 years of owning this and other previous similar
parcels of land in the area it has proved necessary to specifically
delineate the boundaries, description and private ownership of the
land to avoid the problems which have inevitably resulted from
incorrect assumptions and simply poor background research.
I would therefore request :-
a) that I be supplied with a full scale copy of that part of the
survey plan submitted with SSD 9210 which covers the western part of
the site adjoining Lot 2/1222339;
b) that in all plans, reports, correspondence, etc. the land adjoining
the western boundary of SSD 9210 bear its correct designation of Lot
2/1222339, as has been done with other adjoining privately owned
properties, in order to eliminate unprofessional, imprecise, vacuous
references and inevitable misunderstandings;
c) that a fence be surveyed, installed and maintained by the
proponents of SSD 9210 at their expense along our common shared
boundary;
d) that Lot 2/1222339 not be used or even considered in any way for
the disposal of surface water, storm water or any other substance
emanating from SSD 9210, in particular any item which could cause
pollution to properties adjoining the lower reaches of Ropes Creek.
Despite comments in the consultants` reports to the contrary I do not
consider Lot 2/1222339 to be a 'drain' and therefore expect it to be
treated as any other privately owned land and thus not subject to the
vagaries of adjoining owner`s actions
Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
Nigel Tully.
Name Withheld
Object
22 - 30 kosovich cl cecil park , New South Wales
Message
please find attached the submission below with comments about this
application.
Attachments
Endeavour Energy
Comment
HUNTINGWOOD , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
NSW EPA
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
GANSW
Comment
Sydney , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
OEH
Comment
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
RFS
Comment
SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
RMS
Comment
Parramatta , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Sydney Water
Comment
Parramatta , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
TfNSW
Comment
Mascot , New South Wales
Message
Attachments
Fairfield City Council
Object
Fairfield , New South Wales
Message
See attached Cover letter and draft Submission
Attachments

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-9210
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Educational establishments
Local Government Areas
Fairfield City
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
IPC-N

Contact Planner

Name
Aditi Coomar